If Donald Trump worked for us, we'd have to say: "Donald, you're fired — for incompetence." The successful developer and TV celebrity says he'd make a good president [he wouldn't], and maybe he would — we take no stand either way about that. But when it comes to getting facts straight, he fouls up again and again on the basics of President Barack Obama's birth. As a rookie reporter, he just wouldn't make it.
It's a judgment call. I'd show it.
I'm the President. I'm half-Black and a Democrat. I'm Barack Obama. I get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and maybe an Associate Justice or two, or all of them if they want. I take them to Hawaii right into the office that has my original certificate. I invite the Donald along too. I invite FOX News to be right there.
Judge Roberts hears the people right there say that here's the original. He holds it in his hands. The news is right there. I say that Donald is welcome to have a team of document experts analyze it if he doubts the good people in that office, etc., etc. I'd make a bigger show out of it than they ever wanted. Are you beginning to sense what all of that would do?
Would the Donald look even two inches tall to the vast majority of people who right now are actually giving him their ears? He would not. The whole thing would completely crumble. The only holdovers would be so completely marginalized that I doubt you'd ever hear about it again even on FOX accept to distance themselves from those holdovers.
If you disagree with my view though because you don't want to dignify them; well I understand that, but it won't shut them up the way my approach would.
Of course, were I to have been the President, I wouldn't have crumbled about single-payer or clawing back the bankster bailouts/bonuses and countless other matters. We wouldn't be in a depression or be fighting any wars either. That's just me though.
I'd have to give up my religion to be a secularist President though. I'm not preaching Christianity above. It's just inside-the-beltway talk. I'm not supporting Barack Obama as President. I'm just not for taking Barack out of context. He makes enough mistakes without making up lies about him or milking utterly stupid ideas the way Donald Trump has been doing over and over and over.
I'd rather we go for the New Heaven and New Earth rather than be the President. Have you heard of those?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)